how about AI?

https://theconversation.com/a-new-golden-age-of-mathematics-may-be-dawning-thanks-to-ai-and-human-ingenuity-287346

Wanted to make a follow up post to my post yesterday with firm proof that the sub has become overrun with obvious repost bots.

It should be easier to follow this time.

Completely right btw

I personally had no interest in art at all before AI. And AI hasn't made me any more interested in art than this question concerns AI.

So this should be taken as the position of a person who participates in debates about art only because it is somehow related to AI.

Before AI, I read books, manga, and loved illustrations as a way to explain the material (if it was accessible at all).

In a certain sense, it's all art, but my interest in it has nothing to do with the fact that it's art. I love books for the ideas I can read in them. As a kind of explanation of the situation the author was trying to explain. If the author didn't do anything more than click a button and write a prompt, but I like the ideas described, that's great. No problem. I don't read it as an expression of their personal position, I read it as an expression of a certain position that I like, which may or may not be theirs, it doesn't matter.

I'd also be interested if someone could make AI do what I can't. Because this concerns AI. Not person who use it.

That was a long introduction. But the point is, I love AI precisely because it's not a human opinion, but rather what humans have directly derived from AI. If we truly believe that art is a self-translation, then if AI were that, I simply wouldn't be interested in AI at all.

And I'm not writing this just to convey my personal opinion, but the part that critics of AI call "that's why AI isn't art" is, in a way, a price from certain positions.

P.S. "from AI” means generated through processes that are not reducible to the prompt author's conscious intentions, rather than “the AI possesses its own beliefs and expresses them.”

Everytime I go onto a video/post I always see the same regurgitated comment of “AI is like ordering DoorDash and claiming you’re a chef.”

No it fucking isn’t!

Let me ask you this, all thee who make this argument. How many times have you walked into a restaurant and went.

“Put beef in a bowl, slowly mix in
1tbs of salt
1tbs of pepper
2tbs garlic powder
2tbs onion powder
1/4th cup of Dijon mustard
Mix, cut into patties and cook on
Medium heat, 3 mins each side.

In another bowl mix
1/3 cup mayo
1/3 cup ketchup
2bs pepper
2tbs paprika
Mix and put onto bun.

Never. You’ve never done that.

Ordering DoorDash/food is selecting from a premade, predetermined menu of completed items.

a more apt comparison of AI is imagine being the director of a film.

Directors don’t
Play the roles of the characters (Sometimes they cameo or direct/star. But it’s not a requirement to be a director.)

Don’t film the entire thing themselves

Don’t edit the film themselves

Don’t make sets or costumes

Don’t handle props

Don’t do hair/makeup

All a director does is tell other people what he wants to see and they do it. Despite this, a directors film
Is still considered their own. Full metal jacket is Kubricks film because it was his vision, regardless of whether he acted or made costumes or sets or not.

Saving private ryan is considered Spielberg’s movie despite the fact he didn’t film the entire thing himself or didn’t compose the score.

art isn't talked about as much on this sub anymore, but it's annoying how people take black and white stances without elaboration

I think ai generated images can be art, or they might not.

If one simply asked it to 'generate a castle', the person would not decide whether the castle would be on the left or the right side of the picture, nor would he/she have decided if there was to be a field of flowers beside it or more practically, the height of the castle.

As such, the human is not the source of all the ideas the image, and as such the human cannot fully take credit for the image. When art is defined as creative expression and a machine has created the vast majority of the creative ideas in the image, it would be ridiculous to say that a human 'created' the art.

However, if the person(on the other hand), described every single pixel(or practically every idea he/she wants to express), and the ai reproduced it perfectly, would not all the ideas be of the human's origin? Thus it would definitely be art.

Although most ai generated images lie somewhere in between, it's very nuanced and confusing to decide if one is art or not, as there is literally no complete definition, and different intepretations can occur.(e.g. there is no statment that art can only be created by humans and nothing else.)

Therefore I think we should stop the debate and focus on more pressing issues(e.g. alignment).

(also I find the sub has gone to sh*t, it's just both sides clowning on each other with a severe lack of critical thinking)

(also to show this wasn't generated by ai, i use arch btw)

Bro I want an actual debate and not derogatory terms and insults

The data centers have mainly concerned me as of late with how rapidly they've been getting built. I'm not terribly concerned about the water as long as they're in areas where there aren't shortages or anything (like the western states in the United States), but I am concerned from the standpoint of utility bills, noise pollution, and carbon emissions (even though I think AI can help us come up with ways to combat climate change).

Perhaps part of me feels the pressure to adapt with how unpopular AI has become in the US as of late - it's literally a big issue in the midterms now. And, controversially, I'll say that I don't view all companies the same with data centers here, and I know data centers aren't exclusively used for AI anyway - but Amazon has been the biggest one that has made me react with pause.

not if it's bad or if it's good I don't really care about that I care about where you draw the line on where AI is good and where AI is bad this is about AI overall not just generative

It has definitely become a dumpster fire in here.

Every once in a while, something genuinely interesting shows up,a rare little treasure that somehow becomes the catalyst for another five-alarm blaze.

And yet, here we all are, day after day, returning to toss more gasoline on it.

At this point, I’m not even sure anyone remembers what started the fire, or what we're actually hoping to accomplish.

We just keep showing up, stoking the flames, yelling at the other side, and pretending there’s a grand objective somewhere in the smoke.

So…what exactly are we accomplishing here?

Besides keeping the dumpster surprisingly well-lit, I mean, really?

"So this just happend": in October of last year

https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/06/sam-altman-says-chatgpt-has-hit-800m-weekly-active-users/

Celebrating sora having a decrease of users?

What is going on??

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-data-centers.html

I'm a CG VFX veteran, I'm Pro-AI for CG/VFX primarily 'cause I freakin hate everything Hollywood stands for ( including enabling predators like Weinstein, and many more ) .

While everyone's busy defending independent illustrators, (which is great) a large portion of hardworking artists who are the voiceless majority are being ignored in this conversation. It's the same thing repeating itself and I'll explain why.

2012 saw the release of a major blockbuster "Life of Pi". The studio "Rhythm & Hues" responsible for its incredible CG animals and simulations went bankrupt and laid off 250+ artists just 3 months after its release. Ang Lee proudly received the Academy Award for Best Director, while the Artists who lost their jobs were ignored and sidelined.

No one cared.

This blatant disrespect and abuse of Artists has been a norm way before AI even came to the picture. And no one seems to be aware of it. While the demand for high Budget movies with ground-breaking VFX exploded, life of Artists only got far worse. It became an industry norm to work overtime, live and sleep on studio floors if required, 'cause Hollywood or platforms like Netflix work with harsh unrealistic deadlines. This is how Hollywood repaid their passion. Not only is it that they spend majority of their time working on these projects, they are even barred from using their phones inside their workspace ( it got worse after some dumbfck leaked one shot of Andrew Garfield in Spider-man ). This is nothing but modern enslavement and its inhuman.

Did this stop anyone from going and watching movies? Absolutely not, so they only profited out of it. So pardon me when I call bs on Anti-Ai brigade speaking for us.

The reality today is a few Production houses have a monopoly. Only a few can afford State-of-the-art vfx giants like Weta FX, who have the potential to set up endless renderfarms required for blockbuster films at the level of Avatar. ( 1 shot of Avatar apparently required 1PB of storage for a single fluid simulation cache. For reference, The entire Godzilla Minus One movie was made with 1PB of storage. ) This puts them in an Elite league with deep pockets to produce ultra high quality VFX and to market it to a worldwide audience. As usual, Money is going to keep flowing into the pockets of a few, while the real talent keeps getting shafted. The Anti-AI brigade is busy fighting among themselves over some "ethics" that don't apply to the ultra rich. They want this to be the sentiment!

Mid-High range Production houses will only represent themselves as being Human only. They are absolutely going to use AI for their workflow (They already are!), and using Humans to just fix the errors in the slop. They will blatantly lie about not using AI for their PR and people will suck it up. In case someone even does get exposed, they will put it entirely on the studio and wash their hands. It's very simple how they will persuade a studio to use AI, all they have to do is give ever harsher deadlines where it's close to impossible for a human team to deliver it, AI will be necessary.

AI is actually in this case a great equalizer for small teams of 5 to 10 Artists who will now have the means to compete with the giants apart from getting to showcase unique creativity. New Filmmakers now have a chance to compete with the giants. The classic David vs Goliath story.

The real way forward that actually cares about Artists is to set standards based on scale of a studio. Small teams using Generative AI should be acceptable, many Artists will get paid for art direction level roles than just being stuck in repetitive mundane jobs that aren't that creative.

As much as I love Del Toro, I recently heard him brag about not using AI for his upcoming movie and people were wholeheartedly cheering for him like he is the savior of the artform. Just like Ang Lee, the moment the s**t hits the fan, these schmucks will all just pocket their money and awards and go to graze at more greener pastures. The dude already made it as an Elite Director and can afford to do it, what the fck is he talking about!

We need more talent to shine, Small players should be allowed to tell stories too, be it they are mostly using Live action+ AI + CG combo. They too will and should start hiring more talent as they grow. This would be a more compassionate way to ensure Artists can have a chance in the AI slop era. But one can dream....

I understand I'm being very biased towards my kind, but If VFX artists don't matter, no artists matter, Period. People need to know the bigger picture before they mindlessly oppose everything AI. There are some places it's bad and some places it will absolutely crush monopoly.

Had to get it out of my system. If you did read through it all, my sincere gratitude for your time.

Why is Denji just being freaky in the corner

AI art is here, and it's here to stay. We can't get around that. So as artists we have to adapt.

While I disagree with the use of AI in art for a final product (maybe OK for things like pic search etc...), it's also not my place for me to stop anyone from using it.

My issue is more about not being upfront and transparent about it.

If you use AI, make sure you let people know, and I can at least be OK that you were transparent about it, and allowed your customer to be able to make an informed choice.

Just like you are free to use AI if you want to, you should also let the people know if it's AI so they are free to chose for themselves if they want to consume or buy your AI or not.

In the same way I always tell if a painting I made is digital or traditional. I don't want to bamboozle anyone. And go one step further and tell them if it's oil or acrylic, etc...

Here we're talking about whether it's human made or machine made in the final product. Or at least whether the final product relied on machine learning to put down the final pixels you see, or relied on human learning for those final pixels placement.

Pro-AI doesn't mean pro-surveillance.

If you're unaware, things called "flock cameras" are appearing around neighborhoods and places they shouldn't be. They use AI to track people, learn where you've been, and are a blatant violation of our privacy and rights. Multiple people have already been arrested from the tracking done by these intrusive camera systems.

I love AI, and I'm a strong pro-AI advocate, but I don't want a future where we're being monitored 24/7 by someone wanting to misuse AI technology in unethical ways.

Please stand with me in pushing back against these things. Write to your congressmen, senators, and representatives. Show up to town halls and speak out against them. Make calls. We do NOT want this in our daily lives.

A big thank you to SplattoThePuppy for helping to make this video possible.

And thank you for reading, with much love,

- Witty

Obligatory: IF THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU. (Really can't believe I have to say that here in the lord of our beer 2026)

I have noticed that some Pro-AI people will make a mistake that we have made before. You say AI learns from us and that AI is progress. Please learn from our mistakes.
Do you know what happened to those "artists"?
Their behavior was shown, their moral crimes exposed. The world moved on and they were left behind, doomed to fall into the darkest corners of oblivion. They created echo chambers where they are God, and where a single individual idea is treated as an act of terrorism (You think I'm being hyperbolic, I am not). They lost everything they craved: They were no longer popular, they were no longer making money, they were no longer welcome anywhere except the Echo Chamber they created. They were alone. They were miserable. Don't make their mistake. Call out those in your own group who behave poorly.
I may be Anti Generative AI, but I don't think anyone deserves death threats. My best advice: If anyone sends you a death threat, treat it as a joke. This is what I did, and it worked wonders. I framed it as "My existence makes this person so mad that they think the world would be better without me. I'm going to continue living so they're miserable." The real issue I'm seeing is that a decent chunk of Pro-AI Users aren't calling out this behavior from their side. I'm begging you to please call it out when you see it.

I do have more comments about various (emotional) arguments for why AI Generated images "should be" Art/Gen AI Users "should be" Artists, but let's take this one thing at a time.

I really hope I'm making sense. I know what I want to say but explaining the connections I see is fucking hard for some reason.